I didn't fly it for AC but I've got about 1800 hours in them. I absolutely loved the airplane. It was built tough and hand flew very well. I don't remember having any real challenge with landing unless you were very light. When it was light there was a tendency for it to float and eat up runway, so you had to set it down. I flew them as freighters so we often landed closer to the max landing weight.

---------- ADS -----------

A mile of road will take you a mile, but a mile of runway can take you anywhere

I spent quite a few years between the side seat and the right seat. I observed and found that it was difficult to get consistently good landings with it. Those few who could were indeed masters of the hands and feet, as was proven in their other endeavours as well.

it depends which version you were flying.
The -100 flew much better than the -200. The original short version and the long version shared the same wing, so the little one was easier to land; more forgiving.
The -200 was (after flying Douglas airplanes and subsequently other Boeings) a pig. A common name for it was "The Pigboat".
There was a LOT of drag in landing configuration; heaven help you if you pulled the power back before the flare; it would stop flying immediately.
It was for most, a two out of three airplane; two good landings, and one "other".
Jack Desmarais (AKA Ace McCool) was an exception; he could be telling you a story, smoking a cigarette, seemingly doing nothing at all, and he would flare at 3/8ths of an inch, smoothly touching down every time.
I was present at a different sort of landing in Halifax. A different Captain was flying and attempted to break the earth's crust. After we slowed a little, I glanced at the S/O, observing a face the colour of the uniform shirt.
I mentioned quietly to the Captain that we should write up a hard landing; he said; "I've seen lots worse than that"! I tried again on taxi in, with similar results.
I spoke quietly to maintenance who did a cursory check and found nothing wrong.
We had to deadhead back to Toronto on the same aircraft. On arrival the APU wouldn't start, because the oil had run out through the broken casing.
I went to the Chief Pilot's office and told the story. He said his hands were tied because the Captain wouldn't write up the snag.
The aircraft spent a few days in the hangar as bits of damage were found.
The 727-200 was a fuel hog; burning almost double what the DC9 did, in fact, as much as a DC8-63 which carried a lot more.
The 727 took four times the maintenance per flight hour of a DC9, had higher crew costs, and was generally not a good idea. AC only took 39 of the original 42 ordered, and it didn't last that long in the fleet.
It was an OK airplane when fuel and maintenance was cheap, but that time was long past.

it depends which version you were flying.
The -100 flew much better than the -200. The original short version and the long version shared the same wing, so the little one was easier to land; more forgiving.
The -200 was (after flying Douglas airplanes and subsequently other Boeings) a pig. A common name for it was "The Pigboat".
There was a LOT of drag in landing configuration; heaven help you if you pulled the power back before the flare; it would stop flying immediately.
It was for most, a two out of three airplane; two good landings, and one "other".
Jack Desmarais (AKA Ace McCool) was an exception; he could be telling you a story, smoking a cigarette, seemingly doing nothing at all, and he would flare at 3/8ths of an inch, smoothly touching down every time.
I was present at a different sort of landing in Halifax. A different Captain was flying and attempted to break the earth's crust. After we slowed a little, I glanced at the S/O, observing a face the colour of the uniform shirt.
I mentioned quietly to the Captain that we should write up a hard landing; he said; "I've seen lots worse than that"! I tried again on taxi in, with similar results.
I spoke quietly to maintenance who did a cursory check and found nothing wrong.
We had to deadhead back to Toronto on the same aircraft. On arrival the APU wouldn't start, because the oil had run out through the broken casing.
I went to the Chief Pilot's office and told the story. He said his hands were tied because the Captain wouldn't write up the snag.
The aircraft spent a few days in the hangar as bits of damage were found.
The 727-200 was a fuel hog; burning almost double what the DC9 did, in fact, as much as a DC8-63 which carried a lot more.
The 727 took four times the maintenance per flight hour of a DC9, had higher crew costs, and was generally not a good idea. AC only took 39 of the original 42 ordered, and it didn't last that long in the fleet.
It was an OK airplane when fuel and maintenance was cheap, but that time was long past.

it depends which version you were flying.
The -100 flew much better than the -200. The original short version and the long version shared the same wing, so the little one was easier to land; more forgiving.
The -200 was (after flying Douglas airplanes and subsequently other Boeings) a pig. A common name for it was "The Pigboat".
There was a LOT of drag in landing configuration; heaven help you if you pulled the power back before the flare; it would stop flying immediately.
It was for most, a two out of three airplane; two good landings, and one "other".
Jack Desmarais (AKA Ace McCool) was an exception; he could be telling you a story, smoking a cigarette, seemingly doing nothing at all, and he would flare at 3/8ths of an inch, smoothly touching down every time.
I was present at a different sort of landing in Halifax. A different Captain was flying and attempted to break the earth's crust. After we slowed a little, I glanced at the S/O, observing a face the colour of the uniform shirt.
I mentioned quietly to the Captain that we should write up a hard landing; he said; "I've seen lots worse than that"! I tried again on taxi in, with similar results.
I spoke quietly to maintenance who did a cursory check and found nothing wrong.
We had to deadhead back to Toronto on the same aircraft. On arrival the APU wouldn't start, because the oil had run out through the broken casing.
I went to the Chief Pilot's office and told the story. He said his hands were tied because the Captain wouldn't write up the snag.
The aircraft spent a few days in the hangar as bits of damage were found.
The 727-200 was a fuel hog; burning almost double what the DC9 did, in fact, as much as a DC8-63 which carried a lot more.
The 727 took four times the maintenance per flight hour of a DC9, had higher crew costs, and was generally not a good idea. AC only took 39 of the original 42 ordered, and it didn't last that long in the fleet.
It was an OK airplane when fuel and maintenance was cheap, but that time was long past.

The key to the 727-200 landing is to flare and then push forward(or at least relax the control column a bit) to try to roll it on. Doesn't always work but frequently does. It is the kind of plane where you can be thinking in the flare that it will be a beautiful touchdown(followed by Bang) or be thinking that it will be a hard touchdown and you get a perfect greaser.

Depending on flap setting, chopping the thrust at any significant altitude is a big no-no. Continental had a DC-10 guy try that at 50 feet with flaps 40 going into a South Pacific Island and the result was a plane crash. Cut the thrust in the flare. DC-10 techniques may not apply to a 727.

I do recall one time when the landing seemed lost; I pushed as hard as I could and it was a thing of beauty!
I tried to do that on other occasions; usually worked.

Can't say that I ever would have recommended pushing forward as hard as you can. Interesting. Perhaps only in a bad situation to start with. A bit of a push can work on some other types as well that are even bigger but apparently, it is not a good idea on the old L-1011. In that case you are not changing pitch but instead, extending spoilers for the Direct Lift Control(DLC) system used on approach and the landing will just be made worse. 727 techniques may not work in an L-1011.

While the administrators and moderators of this
forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as
quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a
topic or post is inappropriate email us at
avcanada@gmail.com . By reading these forums you acknowledge that
all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and
not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these
people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site.

Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!

We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal
behavior is apparent.
All rights reserved.